Share This

Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts

Saturday, August 16, 2025

Japan constructs image as a ‘victim of war’ through WWII films, revealing distorted historical perspective, GT investigates

 

A ‘war of film narratives’

Published: Aug 15, 2025 12:56 AM


Promotional material for Chinese movie <em>Dead To Rights</em> Photo: Courtesy of Douban

Promotional material for Chinese movie Dead To Rights Photo: Courtesy of Douban

Editor's Note:

This year marks the 80th anniversary of victory in the Chinese People's War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (1931-45) and the World Anti-Fascist War. With films like Dead to Rights and Dongji Rescue gaining popularity during the summer season, they have stirred patriotic sentiments among many Chinese.  

Simultaneously, several war-themed films have been released or re-released in Japan this summer, which focus on portraying Japan as a "victim" suffering "hardships" during the war, while rarely addressing Japan's historical crimes of aggression that caused huge suffering in various Asian countries.

What constitutes a correct perspective on World War II (WWII) history? Can history be arbitrarily rewritten through cinema? On the day of the 80th anniversary of Japan's unconditional surrender, the Global Times presents an investigative article, exposing how Japan promotes historical revisionism through film narrative and creates a one-sided image of Japan as a "victim of the war" so as to distort history. In a sense, this summer is witnessing a "war of film narratives" between China and Japan.


In late July, at a roadshow event for the film Dead to Rights in Shanghai, director Shen Ao told the audience that, beyond the visible war of fire and smoke, there exists an invisible war - a war of culture. 

"To this day, this war has not ended; it continues to struggle online and within the public discourse," Shen said. "Therefore, I hope this film, these photographs, and these materials can alert the audience to distinguish friend from foe, and recognize right from wrong."

Perhaps not everyone immediately grasped Shen's warning, but a glance at Japan this summer reveals that since July, according to descriptions from Japanese media and publicly released trailers, at least seven films related to WWII have been released or re-released. Most of these films emphasize Japan's suffering as a "victim," while seldom mentioning Japan's historical acts of aggression and crimes.

Why is there such a stark divergence in the narratives surrounding WWII between China and Japan, despite being situated within the same historical context? What historical perspective is Japan attempting to convey to its citizens and the world through its films? 

Some scholars studying histories of China and Japan pointed out that these Japanese WWII films, to some extent, aim to distort the narrative of the war, creating a false and biased collective memory among the populace that can essentially foster a "collective amnesia" which allows Japan to forget its identity as a perpetrator and instead emphasize its pathos of being a "victim."

A 'pathos factory'

This summer, Chinese cinema screens have been presenting a series of films commemorating the War of Resistance. 

Dead to Rights tells the story of ordinary people risking their lives to preserve and disseminate photographs documenting Japanese atrocities, embodying the national spirit of "defending every inch of our land." Dongji Rescue recounts the humanitarian act of Chinese fishermen rescuing Allied prisoners of war while under Japanese gunfire, offering a different perspective on the history presented in the documentary The Sinking of the Lisbon Maru. Mountains and Rivers Bearing Witness vividly portrays China's significant contributions to the global anti-fascist victory on the Eastern Front. Set for a September 18 release, 731 Biochemical Revelations exposes the heinous bacterial warfare crimes committed by the Japanese army. 

Promotional material for Chinese movie Dongji Rescue  Photo: Courtesy of Douban

Promotional material for Chinese movie Dongji Rescue Photo: Courtesy of Douban


Yu Peng, chief director of Mountains and Rivers Bearing Witness, told the Global Times that the film extends beyond the battlefield between China and Japan to present the attitudes of countries such as the UK, the US, and the Soviet Union at different stages. From patriotic sentiment to the shared future of humanity, these currently released or upcoming works collectively shape China's cinematic portrayal of WWII history: a remembrance of suffering, but more importantly, a commemoration of justice, resistance and peace.

In sharp contrast, around the same time in Japan, at least seven WWII films released or re-released have constructed a completely different historical narrative.

The documentary Kurokawa no Onnatachi, which premiered on July 12, according to Japanese media, focuses on some maidens "who were forced to 'sexually entertain' Soviet soldiers" and aims to "show the strength of the women who publicly spoke about their tragedy," while seldom talking about the fact that Japan waged the war as an aggressor.

Similarly, Nagasaki: In the Shadow of the Flash, released on August 1, presents the tragedy of the nuclear explosion at Nagasaki through the eyes of three students, repeatedly questioning the value of life, while downplaying the fact that Nagasaki was a crucial military base for the Japanese army during WWII.

Friday marks the 80th anniversary of Japan's unconditional surrender. According to Japanese media, the film Yukikaze will be released on this day. The film portrays the WWII Japanese destroyer Yukikaze as a "lucky ship that rescued crew members," promoting its narrative of "saving lives during fierce battles," while glossing over the fact that the ship was a weapon of Japan's aggression.

On the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the World Anti-Fascist War, Japan has skirted around its heavier historical responsibilities, using films like these to construct a "factory of pathos." On social media, some Japanese viewers expressed emotion over the students in Nagasaki: In the Shadow of the Flash, who, "in a time when the atomic bombing itself was not yet widely known," "faced the destruction of their city and massive casualties - an experience no one had ever endured before."  

While the trauma indeed existed, these Japanese films, through single-perspective narratives, transform serious reflections on aggression and anti-aggression, war and peace, into simple laments for Japan's own "suffering" from its defeat, said several Chinese history scholars reached by the Global Times.

Xu Luyang, the screenwriter of Dead To Rights, told the Global Times that Japan has yet to offer a sincere apology or face up to history objectively and honestly. Although 80 years have passed since the war, attitudes and understanding of the war reflect the subjective tendencies of people's spiritual worlds. 

Germany has continuously reflected on its fascist war through various aspects of national thought, law, intellectuals, and media since WWII; Japan, while having sporadic reflections, lacks a comprehensive and thorough review, standing in stark contrast to Germany, he noted.

Against the backdrop of insufficient societal reflection on the war in Japan, it is unsurprising that some Japanese films, which are steeped in a "victim mentality," find a market in Japan.

Sun Ge, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences focusing on critical Asian studies and comparative ideology, attributed the lack of deep reflection on war in Japan to a "generational fracture" that emerged in the 1960s. 

"In Japan, post-war accountability has primarily been driven by those who personally experienced the war. They advocate for social reflection, emphasizing the need to understand China's position as a victim," Sun told the Global Times on Wednesday. However, with the restructuring of the Cold War landscape, the strengthening of US-Japan relations since the 1960s, and the complex relationships between Japan and the Taiwan Straits, the continuity of this historical accountability has been disrupted across generations.

With the gradual decline of reflection on history by Japanese authorities and society, a "victim mentality" started taking its place. Industry insiders indicate that this mentality is fully reflected in many Japanese WWII films, which have become one of the main producers and disseminators of Japan's "victimhood narrative."

Self-proclaimed 'victim'

In this "war of film narratives," Japan frequently employs the tactic of portraying itself as a "victim" in its films. In an interview in May 2024, Japanese director Hirokazu Kore-eda frankly said that when Japanese people make films about the war, they very often depict Japan as a victim.

"But when you look at it objectively, Japan wasn't a victim, and we're not good at admitting and dealing with our status as the aggressor. You don't really see that in Japanese films," Kore-eda said in an article published on the website of the Cannes Film Festival on May 22, 2024.

Kore-eda's observations are vividly echoed in Japan's recent WWII films. Some industry insiders and audiences may notice that these movies frequently employ several cognitive tactics to construct and amplify a "victimhood narrative." 

For example, many of these films focus on the tragic stories of certain Japanese soldiers or civilians, creating a "pathos aesthetic" that evokes sympathy for the "sacrificed," thereby sidestepping the causes of the war and the essence of Japan's aggression. Additionally, many films conflate "anti-defeat" ideology with anti-war sentiment, concentrating on Japan's "pain of defeat" rather than reflecting on its acts of aggression. Moreover, some of these films prefer to personalize war narratives, delving into the "growth" stories of one or several Japanese individuals during the war, while downplaying discussions of national culpability. These tactics are evident in recently released films.

A Chinese moviegoer in Japan who goes by the name "Sun" shared with the Global Times her thoughts after attending a preview screening of Yukikaze. She said that despite the film's star-studded cast, she found it difficult to empathize with the content. 

"The plot is dry, overly sentimental throughout, and even laughably ridiculous in some parts," Sun said. 

A few critical voices have also emerged on social media regarding recent Japanese WWII films, including some sober reflections on history. 

"Convey [the reality of] war without beautifying it," one Japanese netizen commented on X on August 6. "War must never be repeated."

There are still voices within Japanese academia and civil society calling for honest acknowledgment and reflection on the country's history of aggression. Unfortunately, amid Japan's generally right-leaning social climate, these voices often go unheard, with the truth of history drowned out by nationalist rhetoric. 

Sun told the Global Times that today, most Japanese born after the war don't feel a responsibility for the war. Although exceptions exist, such as the renowned "Article 9 Association" dedicated to preserving anti-war and peaceful thought, these voices remain marginal in mainstream discourse in the country.

The overall silence in Japanese society regarding historical reflection is due not only to the right-leaning atmosphere, but also to a collective tendency to evade these issues. 

"Anti-war stances inherently require presenting the complexity of reality, which entails self-criticism or reflection. For both the media and the public, this is an arduous task - yet for various reasons, the (Japanese) public often shies away from confronting these issues," Sun said.

During an interview with the Global Times, Wang Guangsheng, director of the Japanese Culture Research Center of Capital Normal University, referenced the perspective of Japanese scholar Masaki Nakamasa in his work that can be translated as Japan and Germany: Two Traditions of Postwar Thought.

Nakamasa contends that Germany's earnest postwar reflection was, in essence, "born of necessity," as it was compelled to improve relations with neighboring nations to secure space for development. In contrast, under the US-Japan alliance framework, Japan's geopolitical reality eliminated the imperative to seek forgiveness from victimized nations like China and South Korea, objectively diminishing incentives for profound remorse, Wang said. 

Furthermore, disparities in postwar tribunals created unresolved historical burdens: German war criminals faced explicit accountability for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Japan, however, lacked comparable judicial processes, with its government frequently evading responsibility by invoking "sovereign immunity," resulting in its lack of a clear understanding of its own culpability, the expert said. 

'Collective amnesia' in Japan

The prevalence of Japan's "victimhood narrative" regarding WWII on the screen is regarded as an inevitable result of the country's long-standing rightward political shift and the pervasive influence of historical revisionism. Ryuji Ishida, a scholar of modern and contemporary Japanese history, told the Global Times that contrary to the notion that "historical revisionism [only] emerged as a significant trend in the 1990s after the collapse of the Cold War," the view that "conservative and right-wing factions of historical revisionism have always been mainstream (in Japanese society) aligns more closely with reality."

In July, the Global Times conducted field interviews in Tokyo and Nagano, Japan, discovering a severe gap in Japanese youth's awareness of their country's modern history of aggression. For example, at the Iida City Peace Memorial Hall in Nagano Prefecture, which permanently exhibits physical evidence of the infamous Unit 731's human experiments, students in the nearby study area were completely unaware of its existence; young Japanese visitors to the notorious Yasukuni Shrine treated it as just a normal shrine, with no understanding of its ties to Japan's war of aggression. This "collective historical amnesia" is closely tied to Japan's long-promoted "victimhood narrative."

Recently, Japanese football star Keisuke Honda sparked widespread controversy after initially denying the Nanjing Massacre, then later admitting his mistake after reviewing historical materials. However, after coming under attack from some right-wing netizens in Japan, he claimed that further research was needed and no conclusion could be drawn. Some scholars on China-Japan relations believed that Honda's farce was a stark manifestation of the pervasive influence of Japan's long-standing cognitive infiltration of the "vicitimhood narrative," and the tragedy of the "collective amnesia" in the country.

In an environment characterized by collective avoidance and "amnesia," lots of Japanese war films, whether intentionally or unintentionally, have become cognitive tools for Japan to gloss over its historical transgressions. Many viewers may have noticed that in this "war of film narratives" surrounding WWII, numerous Japanese films tend to focus on "playing the victim" and "emotional manipulation," while many Chinese films on similar themes generally document history and restore the truth in an objective way. 

This represents one of the most significant differences between Chinese and Japanese films on WWII. Xu, the screenwriter of Dead to Rights, noted that photographs in his film symbolize the "revelation of truth," which remains a core dispute between China and Japan regarding the Nanjing Massacre. 

"A country that once committed heinous crimes and launched brutal aggression against China, yet refuses to acknowledge its past is our close neighbor. " From this perspective, Xu said that the film's revelation of truth is "undoubtedly a form of resistance and a counterattack."

Regarding Japan's wartime actions, there is considerable public consensus on Japan's victimhood, such as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the air raids across Japan, regarding which the suffering inflicted by war is widely acknowledged, said Japanese Communist Party member and House of Councillors member Taku Yamazoe. 

"Yet, eight decades later, Japan has failed to reach a consensus on its role as a perpetrator. I believe this stems from the government's reluctance to squarely acknowledge its responsibility," Yamazoe told the Global Times.

Prior to the publication of this article, some Japanese media had reported that Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba had decided to forgo delivering an official statement on the 80th anniversary of Japan's unconditional surrender, unlike his predecessors. Instead, he would issue "personal views." However, it remained undecided when and in what form this would be presented.

On August 6, the official account of the US Embassy in China claimed in a post on Weibo that 80 years ago on August 6, the US and Japan ended a devastating war in the Pacific. Yet for the past eight decades, the US and Japan have stood shoulder to shoulder in safeguarding peace and prosperity in the Pacific region. This statement was met with ridicule and criticism from many Chinese netizens who said that such a post misleadingly suggests that the US and Japan had joined forces to end the Pacific War, thereby seriously distorting history.

These "news developments" have added increasing weight to the "cultural war" warning issued by director Shen during the roadshow for Dead to Rights at the end of July. They also serve as a reminder to Chinese filmmakers, that the role of cinema is not only to document a period of history, but also to solidify a nation's correct understanding of that history, and to showcase the conscience that ought to be shown.
RELATED ARTICLES

Saturday, June 21, 2025

Global campaign to repatriate looted cultural relics gains momentum as voices demand justice, heritage restitution

 

Artifacts on display during a bronze repatriation ceremony in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria on December 20, 2022. Photo: VCG

Cultural artifacts are more than historical remnants; they embody the spirit of a nation and a civilization. 

In recent years, some countries have not only stepped up cultural preservation efforts, but also worked actively to recover artifacts looted during colonial times. Recently, the Global Times interviewed officials in Egypt and Nigeria, as well as representatives from civil groups in Japan and other countries, to learn how those looted treasures are making their way home.

'We cannot leave this to the next generation'

On June 14, 2025, Japanese civic organization Chinese Cultural Relics Return Movement Promotion Association hosted a public lecture in Tokyo that focused on Japan's wartime archaeological activities and cultural relics looted from China and called for the return of looted cultural relics and the reconstruction of related academic ethics, according to the Xinhua News Agency.

Founded in 2021, the civic group seeks to push for the return of relics taken during the First Sino-Japanese War, also known as the Jiawu War (1894-95), the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05) and the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (1931-45).

Keiichiro Ichinose, a Japanese lawyer and the group's founder, told the Global Times that returning these artifacts is a necessary reckoning with Japan's imperialist and colonial past.

In 2012, the Palace Museum in Beijing published a catalogue listing 15,245 rare Chinese cultural artifacts that entered Japan between the First Sino-Japanese War and the end of World War II in 1945. From 1931 to 1945, Japan looted 1,879 crates of Chinese cultural relics. The total number of items is incalculable, according to Xinhua.

Among these are several artifacts the association is specifically demanding be returned, such as three Chinese stone lions looted from Northeast China's Liaoning Province. Two of them are displayed outside the notorious Yasukuni Shrine, while the third is housed in the Tochigi Prefecture. Another item is the Chinese Tang Honglu well Stele of the Tang Dynasty (618-907), looted from Dalian, Northeast China's Liaoning Province, in 1908 and currently stored out of public view in the Fukiage Garden of Japan's Imperial Palace as "national property," according to Xinhua.

Ichinose told the Global Times that since March 2022, the association has been sending formal requests to the Yasukuni Shrine demanding the return of Chinese cultural property. It was not until May 18, 2023, that they secured their first - and so far only - meeting with shrine staff.

"That day, we spoke with the Yasukuni Shrine's general affairs director and section chief," Ichinose recalled. 

"We submitted a second request on July 26, 2023. On August 9, we received a response saying there were 'no developments to report at this time.'"

"Still, we submitted a third request on October 4, 2023. On October 18, we got a reply stating that Yasukuni had already 'expressed its stance' and would not offer another meeting," he said.

"At the same year, We sent a fourth petition on November 30, and received a reply on December 13, that was essentially a repeat of their previous response," Ichinose said. "Even when we presented new evidence, the shrine refused to comment. We will continue to press firmly to prevent them from thinking this issue can simply be ignored." 

The Chinese Tang Honglu well Stele is considered one of the most significant Chinese artifacts looted by Japan. Ichinose said the association had attempted to negotiate with the Imperial Household Agency through a Japanese lawmaker. However, when the supportive lawmaker lost his seat, talks stalled. The group is currently reaching out to other lawmakers in hopes of reviving the discussion.

Today, many Western countries are returning cultural artifacts looted during colonial times, but Japan shows a negative attitude. Ichinose pointed out this stems from the Japanese government's failure to fully reflect on its history of aggression and colonization. As a result, Tokyo has little intention of addressing these lingering historical injustices, including the return of looted artifacts.

According to him, the Chinese Cultural Relics Return Movement Promotion Association holds regular meetings every month to discuss future actions. Each year, it also organizes two major public gatherings calling on the Japanese government to return looted Chinese relics.

When the association was established in 2021, Ichinose found, very few Japanese people - apart from a handful of scholars - were even aware of Japan's looting of Chinese cultural property.

In recent years, as the group's efforts expanded, media attention increased, and more citizens began voluntarily participating in its events.

"Returning looted Chinese artifacts should have been resolved in the last century," Ichinose told the Global Times. "It keeps getting delayed. As Japanese citizens, we believe it's our responsibility to urge the government to act - we cannot pass this burden on to the next generation."

Return of a mummy head

On May 12, 2025, Egypt's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced it had recovered 25 smuggled cultural relics of significant historical and artistic value following negotiations with the US, marking the country's latest success in reclaiming looted artifacts, Xinhua reported. 
Mohamed Ismail Khaled, secretary-general of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, told the Global Times that since 2014, Egypt has successfully retrieved more than 30,000 cultural artifacts.

"As someone who has long worked in the field of cultural repatriation, I know that behind every returned artifact lies the tireless effort and perseverance of many people. These relics are not just witnesses of history - they are essential components of our national cultural identity," he said.

In August 2024, three smuggled artifacts, which belong to the Late Period of Ancient Egypt (747-332 BC), were returned to Egypt from the Netherlands: a blue porcelain ushabti statue, part of a wooden coffin decorated with inscriptions of goddess Isis, and a head of mummy in a good state of preservation with remains of teeth and hair, the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities said in a statement, Xinhua reported.

Khaled said the figurine and coffin fragment were found inside an antique store in the Netherlands, and the Dutch and Egyptian authorities conducted necessary investigations that showed they were illegally smuggled from Egypt, reported Xinhua.

A Dutch individual handed over the mummified head, which he had inherited from a family member, to local authorities, according to AP News.

According to Egyptian media, Leiden University later conducted a chemical analysis of the resin preservatives on the mummified head. The composition matched mummies excavated in Alexandria from the same period, and the skull bore surgical perforations consistent with medical texts from Egypt's Ptolemaic Dynasty (305-30 BC). On this basis, Dutch authorities decided to return the mummy head to Egypt.

Although Egypt has made notable strides in recovering artifacts, Professor Alnajib Alabdulla from the Department of History at Cairo University told the Global Times that the repatriation process remains deeply challenging.

First, many relics were taken illegally decades or even centuries ago, and there is often little documentation or hard evidence, which severely hampers recovery efforts. Second, the legal systems and cultural policies of different countries vary widely, complicating negotiations. Lastly, some artifacts are now in private collections or on the auction market, making it extremely time- and resource-intensive to trace their provenance, according to Alabdulla.

Alabdulla said that Egypt plans to sign more bilateral agreements and long-term cooperation mechanisms on cultural protection and restitution. The country will also build a comprehensive digital database to document each artifact for easier identification and tracking.

Restoring African dignity

Recently, at the National Museum of Ethnology in Leiden, the Netherlands, a staff member wearing blue latex gloves carefully removed a priceless artifact from its display, gently placed it on a padded surface, and wrapped it in several layers of special protective paper. 

According to AFP, the item was a Benin Bronze, an invaluable artifact looted from present-day Nigeria more than 120 years ago. It is now being prepared for repatriation.

Rev. Anamah N.U.B, head of the Cultural Industries and Heritage at Nigeria's Ministry of Art, Culture, Tourism and the Creative Economy, told the Global Times that as an ancient African civilization, Nigeria has spent decades working to reclaim its looted cultural heritage.

Anamah said that in recent years, Nigeria's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has led the charge in recovering these treasures. 
As a result, countries such as the UK, the US, and Germany have already returned or committed to returning certain artifacts.

"However, some countries or institutions in possession of looted relics often show reluctance to return them," Anamah said. 

He said that these countries should not only return the artifacts but also pay reparations to the source nations, as they have benefited economically from these items over the past centuries.

As the global push for artifact repatriation gains momentum, not only governments but also civil organizations are playing a crucial role in driving the process forward.

One such organization is Open Restitution Africa, founded in 2020. It aims to reshape the global narrative to center African voices in heritage discourse.

Members of Open Restitution Africa shared extensive documentation with the Global Times, detailing the historical significance of various African artifacts, their illicit removal from the continent, and the current status of their repatriation efforts.

In 1830, the Véro brothers, French specimen makers, exhumed the remains of a warrior in what is now around Botswana and South Africa and turned the body into a display specimen. After changing hands several times, the remains were put on public display in 1916 at a museum in Spain, under the label "The Negro of Banyoles," according to the BBC. 

For decades, the exhibit went unchallenged - until 1991, when Alphonse Arcelin, a Haitian doctor of African descent, wrote to Banyoles authorities demanding the remains be returned for burial. 

His call was initially met with resistance from local politicians and the public. Following years of intense negotiations, the human remains were returned home in 2000.

According to the Open Restitution Africa, returning the remains of "The Negro of Banyoles" and ensuring a proper burial was vital - not only for restoring the dignity of the deceased but also for affirming the dignity of all the people of Africa.


Wednesday, June 18, 2025

Force cannot bring peace to Middle East – this is a consensus in international community

A plume of heavy smoke rises over an oil refinery in southern of Tehran, after it was hit in an overnight Israeli strike, on June 15, 2025. Photo: AFP

On Monday, the conflict between Israel and Iran entered its fourth day, with both sides escalating the intensity of their confrontation in a cycle of tit-for-tat violence. The mutual attacks have not only resulted in casualties and infrastructure damage but have also set a dangerous precedent by targeting nuclear and energy facilities, sparking deep concerns within the international community about the potential for the situation to spiral out of control.

Israel and Iran are both important countries in the Middle East. The relationship between Israel and Iran bears on the overall situation of war and peace in the Middle East. The urgent task is to immediately take measures to avoid the escalation of the conflict, prevent the region from falling into greater turmoil, and return to the track of resolving issues through diplomatic means. Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Foreign Minister Wang Yi held separate phone calls with the Iranian and Israeli foreign ministers, calling on both sides to resolve differences through dialogue. Relevant parties need to take measures immediately to put a brake on the escalation of the conflict and bring down the temperature of the situation. Russia, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have also expressed a willingness to mediate. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres wrote on social media: "Israeli bombardment of Iranian nuclear sites. Iranian missile strikes in Tel Aviv. Enough escalation. Time to stop. Peace and diplomacy must prevail."

It is crucial to fully recognize that only by upholding the vision of common security can the legitimate concerns of all parties be thoroughly addressed. Why are maximum pressure and preemptive action not viable paths? The long and troubled history of the Iran nuclear issue itself proves this point. On the surface, the conflict appears to be triggered by the "nuclear" question, but at its core, it is yet another manifestation of a deep-rooted security dilemma. Israel, fearing that Iran's development of nuclear weapons poses a threat to its security, has adopted a "preemptive" strategy. However, its actions that infringe upon Iran's sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity have, in turn, led to greater insecurity for itself. In fact, the moment when the Iran nuclear issue came closest to resolution was not achieved through a "preemptive" strike; rather, it was the result of 13 years of "marathon" negotiations and the greatest collective efforts by the international community, culminating in the achievement of a binding comprehensive agreement in 2015. Had it not been for the US later withdrawing from the deal, and had the agreement been earnestly and fully implemented, both Iran and Israel would clearly be much safer today.

Ancient Roman scholar Marcus Tullius Cicero once pointed out: "Most people think that the achievements of war are more important than those of peace; but this opinion needs to be corrected." The late former president of Israel, Shimon Peres, expressed a similar sentiment: "The real triumph is in the harvest of peace, not in the seeds of another war." The many military conflicts in the history of the Middle East have not quelled disputes; rather, they have planted the seeds for future confrontations. The vicious cycle of violence and confrontation has deepened divisions among countries in the region, making the path to peacefully resolving disputes increasingly difficult. To break free from bloodshed and turmoil, the Middle East must first abandon the old mind-set of "beggaring thy neighbor" and embrace a new security vision that is common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable.

It is important to recognize that, despite differing positions and philosophies among regional countries on security issues, there are still common interests. Only through dialogue, rather than confrontation, can differences and antagonism be reduced and the broadest possible foundation for cooperation be found.

As a country with special influence over Israel, the US should particularly take on its due responsibility as a major power in both words and actions. For a long time, the general impression has been that the US hardly plays a constructive role in alleviating regional conflicts, but it excels at destructive actions. The ongoing fires of conflict in the Middle East are closely related to the "visible hand" of external powers. Many analysts believe that the US attempt to force Iran to yield through "maximum pressure" has been a significant factor in the sudden escalation of tensions between Israel and Iran. In an editorial, Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao stated that Washington had previously given Iran 60 days to reach a nuclear deal, and Israel launched its attack on the 61st day, "showing the diplomatic tacit understanding of both sides playing the roles of good cop and bad cop." A New York Times article last year compared the US to lion, the "king of the Middle East jungle" and Iran to a "parasitic wasp," claiming that in order to "kill the wasp," the US needs to "set fire to the whole jungle." This kind of thinking is extremely dangerous.

The security concerns of Middle Eastern countries need to be addressed, and military force cannot bring peace to the region. This is a common consensus in the international community, including China. Currently, diplomatic means regarding the Iranian nuclear issue have not been exhausted, and a peaceful resolution is still possible. Most importantly, both parties in the conflict and relevant stakeholders should take immediate measures to create conditions for returning to dialogue and negotiation to resolve the issues. Global Times editorial



RELATED ARTICLES